Search Results

Search found 31421 results on 1257 pages for 'software performance'.

Page 547/1257 | < Previous Page | 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554  | Next Page >

• zfs setup question

  - by Staale

  Currently I have a linux storage box and server with 4x750gb harddrives in raid-5 with ext3. I have ordered 3x1.5tb disks to upgrade this. Here is my planned upgrade: Backup: Format the 1.5 tb disks Copy all data from the raid-5 disks to the 1.5tb disks Destroy the raid-5 array. New setup: Create a VirtualBox system and install Nexenta (OpenSolaris + ubuntu) on it. Create a zfs pool with zraid1 with the 4 750gb disks. Copy from 1.5tb disks to the virtualbox zfs pool Format the 1.5tb disks. Replace 3 off the 750gb disks with 1.5tb disks. Reuse the 750gb disks elsewhere. The reason I wish to use one 750gb disk is since I can't grow the disk count in a raidz array, and this gives me the option off replacing that disk later for an extra 750gb storage. Would the ZFS performance be good running through virtualbox? Or will the performance overhead be too large? Will I get 1.5tb+1.5tb+750gb storage on the zraid? Or just 750gbx3 until all disks are 1.5tb?

  Read the article

• Developer's PC - worth getting more than 8GB RAM?

  - by Borek

  I'm building a developer PC and am wondering whether to get 8GB or 12GB. It's a Core-i7 860 system, i.e., 1156 motherboards with 4 slots for RAM sticks, dual channel, usually up 16GB (as opposed to 1366 sockets where 6 banks / triple-channel are used). 8GB would be cheaper to get especially because price per GB is lower with 4x2GB compared to 2x4GB. Also the availability is worse for 4GB DIMMs here where I live; those are the main practical advantages of 8GB. (Edit: I should have stressed the price difference more - in the eshop I'm buying from, the difference between 12GB and 8GB is so big that I could almost buy a whole new netbook for it.) However, I understand that more RAM can never do harm which is the point of this question - how much of a difference will 12GB make as opposed to 8GB? Honestly, I've always been on 3.2GB systems (4GB but 32bit system) and never felt much pain from having too little memory - of course there could be more but for instance compiler's performance was usually held back by slow I/O or not utilizing multiple cores on my CPU. Still, I'm not questioning that 8GB will be useful, however, I'm not sure about the additional 4GB difference between 8 and 12 gig. Anyone has experience with 8GB / 12GB systems? The software I usually run all the time: Visual Studio or Eclipse (both should be fine with ~2GB RAM, after that I feel their performance is I/O bound) Firefox (it can never have enough RAM can it? :) Office (~500MB RAM should be enough) ... and then some smaller apps like Skype, other browsers, some background services etc.

  Read the article

• Is it possible to shrink the size of an HP Smart Array logical drive?

  - by ewwhite

  I know extension is quite possible using the hpacucli utility, but is there an easy way to reduce the size of an existing logical drive (not array)? The controller is a P410i in a ProLiant DL360 G6 server. I'd like to reduce logicaldrive 1 from 72GB to 40GB. => ctrl all show config detail Smart Array P410i in Slot 0 (Embedded) Bus Interface: PCI Slot: 0 Serial Number: 5001438006FD9A50 Cache Serial Number: PAAVP9VYFB8Y RAID 6 (ADG) Status: Disabled Controller Status: OK Chassis Slot: Hardware Revision: Rev C Firmware Version: 3.66 Rebuild Priority: Medium Expand Priority: Medium Surface Scan Delay: 3 secs Surface Scan Mode: Idle Queue Depth: Automatic Monitor and Performance Delay: 60 min Elevator Sort: Enabled Degraded Performance Optimization: Disabled Inconsistency Repair Policy: Disabled Wait for Cache Room: Disabled Surface Analysis Inconsistency Notification: Disabled Post Prompt Timeout: 15 secs Cache Board Present: True Cache Status: OK Accelerator Ratio: 25% Read / 75% Write Drive Write Cache: Enabled Total Cache Size: 512 MB No-Battery Write Cache: Disabled Cache Backup Power Source: Batteries Battery/Capacitor Count: 1 Battery/Capacitor Status: OK SATA NCQ Supported: True Array: A Interface Type: SAS Unused Space: 412476 MB Status: OK Logical Drive: 1 Size: 72.0 GB Fault Tolerance: RAID 1+0 Heads: 255 Sectors Per Track: 32 Cylinders: 18504 Strip Size: 256 KB Status: OK Array Accelerator: Enabled Unique Identifier: 600508B1001C132E4BBDFAA6DAD13DA3 Disk Name: /dev/cciss/c0d0 Mount Points: /boot 196 MB, / 12.0 GB, /usr 8.0 GB, /var 4.0 GB, /tmp 2.0 GB OS Status: LOCKED Logical Drive Label: AE438D6A5001438006FD9A50BE0A Mirror Group 0: physicaldrive 1I:1:1 (port 1I:box 1:bay 1, SAS, 146 GB, OK) physicaldrive 1I:1:2 (port 1I:box 1:bay 2, SAS, 146 GB, OK) Mirror Group 1: physicaldrive 1I:1:3 (port 1I:box 1:bay 3, SAS, 146 GB, OK) physicaldrive 1I:1:4 (port 1I:box 1:bay 4, SAS, 146 GB, OK) SEP (Vendor ID PMCSIERA, Model SRC 8x6G) 250 Device Number: 250 Firmware Version: RevC WWID: 5001438006FD9A5F Vendor ID: PMCSIERA Model: SRC 8x6G

  Read the article

• On a dual-GPU laptop, is using the discrete GPU ever more power efficient?

  - by Mahmoud Al-Qudsi

  Given a laptop with a dual integrated/discrete GPU configuration, is it ever more power efficient to use the discrete GPU instead of the integrated? Obviously when writing an email or working on a spreadsheet, the integrated GPU will always use less power. But let's say you're doing something graphics-medium but not graphics-intensive/heavy - is there a point where it actually makes sense to fire up the discrete GPU, not for performance but for power-saving reasons? Off the top of my head, I can think of a scenario where the external GPU supports hardware decoding of a particular video codec - I'd imagine there is a "price point" where using the GPU saves more energy than decoding that fully in software would. But I think most GPUs, integrated or discrete, pretty much decode just the plain-Jane h264. But maybe there is something more complicated, perhaps if you're doing something like desktop/windowing animations or a flash animation on a website (not an embedded flash video) - maybe the discrete GPU will use enough less power to make up for switching to it? I guess this question can be summed up as to whether or not you can say beyond doubt that if you don't care for performance on a laptop with two GPUs, always use the integrated GPU for maximum battery life.

  Read the article

• Howo to get Multipath IO with Dell MD3600i into active/active setup?

  - by Disco

  I'm desperately trying to improve performance of my SAN connection. Here's what i have: [root@xnode1 dell]# multipath -ll mpath1 (36d4ae520009bd7cc0000030e4fe8230b) dm-2 DELL,MD36xxi [size=5.5T][features=3 queue_if_no_path pg_init_retries 50][hwhandler=1 rdac][rw] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=200][active] \_ 18:0:0:0 sdb 8:16 [active][ready] \_ 19:0:0:0 sdd 8:48 [active][ghost] \_ 20:0:0:0 sdf 8:80 [active][ghost] \_ 21:0:0:0 sdh 8:112 [active][ready] And multipath.conf : defaults { udev_dir /dev polling_interval 5 prio_callout none rr_min_io 100 max_fds 8192 user_friendly_names yes path_grouping_policy multibus default_features "1 fail_if_no_path" } blacklist { device { vendor "*" product "Universal Xport" } } devices { device { vendor "DELL" product "MD36xxi" path_checker rdac path_selector "round-robin 0" hardware_handler "1 rdac" failback immediate features "2 pg_init_retries 50" no_path_retry 30 rr_min_io 100 prio_callout "/sbin/mpath_prio_rdac /dev/%n" } } And sessions. [root@xnode1 dell]# iscsiadm -m session tcp: [13] 10.0.51.220:3260,1 iqn.1984-05.com.dell:powervault.md3600i.6d4ae520009bd7cc000000004fd7507c tcp: [14] 10.0.50.221:3260,2 iqn.1984-05.com.dell:powervault.md3600i.6d4ae520009bd7cc000000004fd7507c tcp: [15] 10.0.51.221:3260,2 iqn.1984-05.com.dell:powervault.md3600i.6d4ae520009bd7cc000000004fd7507c tcp: [16] 10.0.50.220:3260,1 iqn.1984-05.com.dell:powervault.md3600i.6d4ae520009bd7cc000000004fd7507c I'm getting very poor read performance : dd if=/dev/mapper/mpath1 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1000 The SAN is configured as follows: CTRL0,PORT0 : 10.0.50.220 CTRL0,PORT1 : 10.0.50.221 CTRL1,PORT0 : 10.0.51.220 CTRL1,PORT1 : 10.0.51.221 And on the host : IF0 : 10.0.50.1 IF1 : 10.0.51.1 (Dual 10GbE Ethernet Card Intel DA2) It's connected to a 10gbE switch dedicated for SAN traffic. My questions being; why the connection is set up as 'ghost' and not 'ready' like an active/active configuration ?

  Read the article

• ZFS: Mirror vs. RAID-Z

  - by John Clayton

  I'm planning on building a file server using OpenSolaris and ZFS that will provide two primary services - be an iSCSI target for XenServer virtual machines & be a general home file server. The hardware I'm looking at includes 2x 4-port SATA controllers, 2x small boot drives (one on each controller), and 4x big drives for storage. This allows one free port per controller for upgrading the array down the road. Where I'm a little confused is how to setup the storage drives. For performance, mirroring appears to be king. I'm having a hard time seeing what the benefit would be of using RAIDZ over mirroring would be. With this setup I can see two options - two mirrored pools in one stripe, or RAIDZ2. Both should protect against 2 drive failures, and/or one controller failure...the only benefit of RAIDZ2 would be that any 2 drives could fail. The storage should be 50% of capacity in both cases, but the first should have much better performance, right? The other thing I'm trying to wrap my mind around is the benefit of mirrored arrays with more than two devices. For data integrity what, if any, would be the benefit of a RAIDZ over a three-way mirror? Since ZFS maintains file integrity what does RAIDZ bring to the table...doesn't ZFS's integrity checks negate the value of RAIDZ's parity?

  Read the article

• Atlassian Crucible very slow on large repository

  - by Mitch Lindgren

  Hi everyone, My company has been running a trial of Atlassian Crucible for some months now. For repositories where it's working properly, users have given very positive feedback about the tool. The problem I'm having is that we have several different projects, each with its own repository, and some of those repositories are very large. One repository in particular has a large number of branches and probably around 9,000 files per branch. Browsing that repository in Crucible is extremely slow. Crucible is running on a CentOS VM. The VM has 4GB of RAM, and I've set Crucible's maximum at 3GB, of which it is currently using 2GB. I've brought this up in a support ticket with Atlassian, and they suggested the following: In particular because you have a rather large SVN repository you will likely find that Fisheye will be creating a large index file on disk. To help improve performance a few things you can try are: Increasing the available memory available to Fisheye (see the document above). Migrating to an external database: confluence.atlassian.com/display/FISHEYE/Migrating+to+an+External+Database Excluding files and directories from your index that aren't needed: confluence.atlassian.com/display/FISHEYE/Allow+(Process) (Sorry for not hyperlinking; don't have the rep.) I've tried all of these things to an extent, but so far none have helped greatly. I was originally running Crucible on a Windows box with 2GB of RAM using the built in HSQL DB. Moving to MySQL on CentOS saw a performance increase for some repositories, and made Crucible much more stable, but did not seem to help much with our biggest repository. There are only so many files/branches I can exclude from indexing while maintaining the tool's usefulness. That being the case, does anyone have any tips on how to speed up Crucible on large repositories, without investing in insanely powerful hardware? Thanks! Edit: To clarify, since I didn't mention it explicitly above, I am using FishEye.

  Read the article

• Intel z77 vs h77 for intensive compiling, gaming [closed]

  - by Bilal Akhtar

  I'm in the market for a desktop motherboard (preferably ATX) that functions well with Intel i7-3770 Ivy Bridge processor at 3.4 GHz with LGA1155 socket. That processor is very fast, and it should handle all my tasks. My question is about the type of motherboard chipset I should choose to accompany it. I plan to use my rig for compiling and developing Debian package and other OS components, web development, occasional Android apps, chroots, VMs, FlightGear, other gaming but nothing serious, and heavy multitasking, all on Ubuntu. I do NOT plan to overclock, and I never will, so that's not a cause of concern for me. That said, I'm down to three chipset choices: Intel H77 Intel Z68 Intel Z77 I'm planning to go for H77 since I don't need any of the new features in Z77. I don't plan to use a second GPU and I will never overclock my CPU/GPU. My question is, will H77 based MoBos handle all my tasks well? Intel advertises that chipset as "everyday computing" but other sites say it's base functionality is the same as Z77. Intel rather advertises Z77 for "serious multitaskers, hardcore gamers and overclocking enthusiasts". But the problem with all Z77 motherboards I've seen is, they're way too expensive and their main feature seems to be overclocking, which won't be useful to me. Will I lose any raw CPU/GPU performance or HDD R/w with the H77 when comparing it to a Z77? Will heat, etc be an issue too? From what I've seen, Z77 motherboards have larger heat sinks when compared to H77 ones. Will that be an issue too, if I go with an H77 motherboard with no heat sinks for the chipset? The CPU will have a fan in both cases, of course. tl;dr When it comes to CPU/GPU performance and HDD r/w, is the Intel H77 chipset slower than the Z77? I don't care about overclocking or multiple GPUs, and for the processor, I'm set on Ivy Bridge i7-3770.

  Read the article

• LAN network (switch?)

  - by guywhoneedsahand

  I am working on setting up the network for a small LAN party (less than 16 people). Most of them do not have wireless cards in their rigs, so I need to set up some way for everyone to a) play LAN games and b) access the internet. The LAN party will probably take place in my basement, where I have enough space. However, the basement is not wired up with the router which is actually on the floor above. I make a cantenna a while back that can boost the wireless performance of my computer significantly. How can I use this to provide internet and LAN to guests? My hope was that I could use a switch like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833181166 for the LAN - but how can I give people access to the internet? Is there such thing as a network extender / 16-port switch? Obviously, the internet performance doesn't need to be super stellar, because the games will be using LAN - so I am looking to provide some usable internet for web browsing, and very high speed LAN for games. Thanks!

  Read the article

• AMD FX8350 CPU - CoolerMaster Silencio 650 Case - New Water Cooling System

  - by fat_mike

  Lately after a use of 6 months of my AMD FX8350 CPU I'm experiencing high temperatures and loud noise coming from the CPU fan(I set that in order to keep it cooler). I decided to replace the stock fan with a water cooling system in order to keep my CPU quite and cool and add one or two more case fans too. Here is my case's airflow diagram: http://www.coolermaster.com/microsite/silencio_650/Airflow.html My configuration now is: 2x120mm intake front(stock with case) 1x120mm exhaust rear(stock with case) 1 CPU stock I'm planning to buy Corsair Hydro Series H100i(www.corsair.com/en-us/hydro-series-h100i-extreme-performance-liquid-cpu-cooler) and place the radiator in the front of my case(intake) and add an 120mm bottom intake and/or an 140mm top exhaust fan. My CPU lies near the top of the MO. Is it a good practice to have a water-cooling system that takes air in? As you can see here the front of the case is made of aluminum. Can the fresh air go in? Does it even fit? If not, is it wiser to get Corsair Hydro Series H80i (www.corsair.com/en-us/hydro-series-h80i-high-performance-liquid-cpu-cooler) and place the radiator on top of my case(exhaust) and keep the front 2x120mm stock and add one more as intake on bottom. If you have any other idea let me know. Thank you. EDIT: The CPU fan running ~3000rpm and temp is around 40~43C on idle and save energy. When temp is going over 55C when running multiple programs and servers on localhost(tomcat, wamp) rpm is around 5500 and loud! I'm running Win8.1 CPU not overclocked PS: Due to my reputation i couldn't post the links that was necessary. I will edit ASAP.

  Read the article

• How to direct reverse proxy requests using wildcard vhosts

  - by HonoredMule

  I'm interested in running a reverse proxy with 2-3 virtual machines behind it. Each internal server will run multiple virtual hosts, and rather than manually configuring each individual vhost on the proxy (a variety of vhosts come and go too often for this to be practical), I would like to use something which can employ pattern matching in a sequential order to find the appropriate back-end server. For example: Server 1: *.dev.mysite.com Server 2: *.stage.mysite.com Server 3: *.mysite.com, dev.mysite.com, stage.mysite.com, mysite.com Server 4: * In the above configuration, task.dev.mysite.com would go to Server 1, dev.mysite.com would go to Server 3, yoursite.stage.mysite.com to Server 2, www.mysite.com to Server 3, and yoursite.com to Server 4. I've looked into using Squid, Varnish, and nginx so far. I have my opinions regarding their respective desirability and general suitability, but it's not readily apparent if any of them can handle dynamic server selection in this manner and not require per-vhost configuration. Apache on the other hand can do this handily and simply, but otherwise (aside from being well-known and familiar) seems very poorly suited to the partly-performance-serving task. Performance isn't actually a major concern yet, but it seems foolish to use Apache if another system will perform far better and can also handle the desired 'hands-free' configuration. But so is frequently having to adjust the gateway for all production services and risk network-wide outage...and so also is setting oneself up for longer downtime later if Apache becomes a too-small bottleneck. Which of these (or other) reverse proxies can do it/would do it best? And maybe I should post this as a separate question, but if Apache is the only practical option, how safe/reliable/predictable is apache-mpm-event in apache2.2 (Ubuntu 12.04.1) particularly for a dedicated reverse proxy? As I understand it the Event MPM was declared "safe" as of 2.4 but it's unclear whether reaching stability in 2.4 has any implications for the older (2.2) versions available in official/stable package channels of various distros.

  Read the article

• Way to speed up load-balanced ssl using nginx?

  - by paulnsorensen

  So the setup for our website is 4 nodes running rails 3 and nginx 1 that all use the same GoDaddy certificate. Because we are a paid site, we have to maintain PCI-DSS compliance and thus have to use the more expensive SSL ciphers -- also we force SSL using Rack. I've recently switched over to Linode's NodeBalancer (which I've read is an HACluster), and we're not getting the performance we'd ideally like. From what I've read, it looks like terminating the SSL on the nodes using the high cipher is what is causing the poor performance, but I'd like to be thorough. Is there anything I can do? I've read about other ways to terminate the SSL before the NodeBalancer (like using stud), but I don't know enough about these solutions. We certainly don't want to do anything experimental or anything that has a single point of failure. If there really isn't anything I can do to speed up the SSL handshake, my alternative would be to support certain pages on Rails using a secure and insecure subdomain. I've found a few guides that walk through that, but my resulting question is in this situation, would it be better to have nginx handle forcing ssl on the secure subdomain instead of rails? Thanks!

  Read the article

• nf_conntrack complaints in dmesg

  - by Alexander Gladysh

  While investigating complains on bad HTTP server performance, I've discovered these lines in dmesg of my Xen XCP host that contains a guest OS with said server: [11458852.811070] net_ratelimit: 321 callbacks suppressed [11458852.811075] nf_conntrack: table full, dropping packet. [11458852.819957] nf_conntrack: table full, dropping packet. [11458852.821083] nf_conntrack: table full, dropping packet. [11458852.822195] nf_conntrack: table full, dropping packet. [11458852.824987] nf_conntrack: table full, dropping packet. [11458852.825298] nf_conntrack: table full, dropping packet. [11458852.825891] nf_conntrack: table full, dropping packet. [11458852.826225] nf_conntrack: table full, dropping packet. [11458852.826234] nf_conntrack: table full, dropping packet. [11458852.826814] nf_conntrack: table full, dropping packet. Complains are repeated every five seconds (number of suppressed callbacks is different each time). What can these sympthoms mean? Is that bad? Any hints? (Note that the question is more narrow than "how to solve specific case of bad HTTP server performance", so I do not give more details on that.) Additional info: $ uname -a Linux MYHOST 3.2.0-24-generic #37-Ubuntu SMP Wed Apr 25 08:43:22 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ lsb_release -a No LSB modules are available. Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description: Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Release: 12.04 Codename: precise $ cat /proc/sys/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_max 1548576 The server is under about 10M hits / day load.

  Read the article

• What configuration changes can I make to speed up extremely slow Windows VM's in ESXi 4.0.

  - by Shawn Anderson

  I've recently moved from VMWare Server to ESXi 4.0. Running on Dell T310. My VM's have been restored but they are running dog slow compared to VMWare Server. I loaded ESXi 4.0 using only default values. Where are some areas where I can tweak the performance? Even logging onto the VM's can be extremely sluggish. Trying to install software on any of them is a new experience in pain. Dell PowerEdge T310 Xeon X3460 2.80 GHz 32 GB RAM 1 HD (2 TB) I have 16 VM's on this server, but only six or so will be running during my testing. I keep an eye on the Resource Allocation and Performance tabs for the host and I never see CPU or RAM getting anywhere close to pegged. Events tab does show some notices for video RAM issues and some hints on Windows activation issues, but nothing that would point to the sort of sluggishness that I'm experiencing. 1 Windows Server 2008 R2 (64-bit) - 4 GB RAM 1 Windows 7 (32-bit) - 2 GB RAM 1 Vista (32-bit) - 1 GB RAM 3 XP (32-bit) - 1 GB RAM Over to you! Thanks - Shawn

  Read the article

• Should I persist images on EBS or S3 ??

  - by enes

  Hi; I am migrating my Java,Tomcat, Mysql server to AWS EC2. I have already attached EBS volume for storing Mysql data. In my web application people may upload images. So I should persist them. There are 2 alternatives in my mind. 1- Save uploaded images to EBS volume. 2- Use S3 service. The followings are my notes, please be skeptic about them, as my expertise is not on servers, but software development. EBS plus: S3 storage is more expensive. (0.15 $/Gb 0.1$/Gb) S3 plus: Serving statics from EBS may influence my web server's performance negatively. Is this true? Does Serving images affect server performance notably? For S3 my server will not be responsible for serving statics. S3 plus: Serving statics from EBS may result I/O cost, probably it will be minor. EBS plus: People say EBS is faster. S3 plus: People say S3 is more safe for persistence. EBS plus: No need to learn API, it is straight forward to save the images to EBS volume. Namely I can not decide, will be happy if you guide. Thanks

  Read the article

• cPanel web servers mounting home partition to a NAS or SAN

  - by Scott

  I currently have 2 cPanel web servers that are little 1RU dual cpu quad core xeons. They have a lot of resources for processing and handling web requests, and never exceed more than 10% cpu usage. They also have plenty of RAM. The problem is though that they both have RAID 1 160Gb SAS hard disk drives in them that are 75% full, and growing by the day. I didnt think that the amount of disk usage would be so high, but due to the nature of the sites hosted, this has become an issue. The easy fix would be just to upgrade the hard drives to something bigger (probably not of the SAS variety), but I am thinking of keeping the current machines as "processing servers" and buying a central "storage server" with about 12TB of storage. The /home/ partition on each of the 1RU servers would be mounted to a NAS or SAN point on this central storage server. My questions are: - Has anyone got a cPanel setup where they mount /home/ to a NAS or SAN elsewhere? If so, can you provide details as to what you did and how it went :) - Any recommendations on networking? Is gigabit ethernet enough? Is TCP/IP going to be a noticable performance problem? Anyone used a TOE key? - Anyone benchmarked or had any performance issues with SAN over NAS? Any help greatly appreciated. Scott

  Read the article

• Optimum configuration of McAfee for Servers

  - by Wayne Arthurton

  Our corporate standard is McAfee Enterprise, unfortunately this is non-negotiable. On two types of servers I'm responsible for, SQL & Web, we have noticed major performance issues with the corporate standard setup. Max scan time 45sec One policy for all processes Scan ALL files on write, read and open for backup Heuristics: Find unknown programs, trojans and macros Detect unwanted programs Exclude: EVT, LDF, LOG, MDF, VMD, , windows file protection) This of course still causes major slowdowns. IIS .NET recompiles are slow especially with SharePoint, SQL backups and restores, SQL Analysis Services, Integration Services and temp data from them as well. I have looked from time to time, for some best practices on setting up McAfee of SQL & SQL Analysis Service, SQL Integration Service, Visual Studio, Sharepoint, and .NET web servers in general. How do people setup McAfee enterprise on their corporate serves keeping security intact, but affecting performance as minimally as possible? Has anyone run across white papers on these setups? Obviously some are case by case, but there must be some best practices out there somewhere.

  Read the article

• Format & Fresh Install Mac os x snow leopard in mac mini.

  - by sagar

  Hello Every one. I have purchased dvd of Snow leopard 10.6.2. But actually I purchased mac mini with 10.5.7 leopard I tried to install snow leopard 10.6.2. Everything went perfectly. system was installed successfully. But the problem that I faced is as follows. System was installed but my older data remained as it is. ( means installation didn't format every thing - means installation was done on upgrade basis. ) Now, my system works with very low speed. Previous performance of mac mini was double as compare to current upgrade version. Now - my question are as follows. Does upgrade installation causes the performance in specially osx ? ( means anyone faced this kind of problem ? ) Or 10.6.2 snow leopard is heavy weight system for mac mini ? ( 2Ghz Intel core2duo,1GB RAM - is this configuration OK for snow leopard 10.6.2 ? ) Fresh install works better then upgrade in os x ?

  Read the article

• Please advise on VPS config choice (with SQL Server Express)

  - by tjeuten

  Hi all, I might be interested in getting a VPS hosting plan for some small personal sites and .NET projects. Was thinking of Softsys Bronze Plan, as my current shared host plan is with them too. The stuff I want to host has grown beyond the capabilities of a Shared hosting plan, and I also want more control over the IIS/ASP.NET configuration, that's why I'm considering VPS. The main config details would be: Hyper-V 30 GB of diskspace 1 GB of RAM More info here: http://www.softsyshosting.com/Windows-VPS-HyperV.aspx Does anyone have experience with this plan (or something similar from another host), and maybe could answer these couple of questions: Bronze has a total diskspace of 30GB. Is the OS part of this quota or not ? If so, how much does a base configuration with Windows 2008 take up in diskspace ? Would you advise Windows 2008 R2 or Normal. Or would you advise to use Windows 2003 with this config. I'm planning on running a SQL Server Express install too. Would 1 GB of RAM be enough for both the Windows 2008 (R2) and SQL Express. The database load will not be that very high (a couple of 1000 records returned each day). The DB will most likely be far away from the 4GB limit, that's why I'd go for a SQL Express instead of paying extra licensing costs for a SQL Web install. But I'm more concerned about performance. Would you recommend Softsys as a VPS host ? I've been with them for one year for my Shared hosting plan, and have no complaints so far. Also, as I have no VPS experience, what are the pitfalls I need to be aware of, in terms of performance mainly, but maybe in other areas too ? Mathieu

  Read the article

• nginx connection pool race condition?

  - by wlf

  I have a shared hosting server with high traffic. I have a lightweight apache mod_proxy for static content that from time to time has a "504 proxy error" problem proxing to apache/mod_php. Error log says: error reading status line from remote server 127.0.0.1:8080 Error reading from remote server returned by / This is what the apache documentation says about it. proxy-initial-not-pooled If this variable is set no pooled connection will be reused if the client connection is an initial connection. This avoids the "proxy: error reading status line from remote server" error message caused by the race condition that the backend server closed the pooled connection after the connection check by the proxy and before data sent by the proxy reached the backend. It has to be kept in mind that setting this variable downgrades performance, especially with HTTP/1.0 clients. I am really concerned about this downgrade in performance therefore I started to look at nginx immediately. I am new to nginx and time is crucial right now, I can't afford to waste days to study it just to find out there is the same race condition issue. Is nginx affected by this connection pool race condition? Thanks

  Read the article

• Best way to 'harden' embedded ext4 file server against unexpected loss of power?

  - by Jeremy Friesner

  Hi all, First, a little background: my company makes an audio streaming device that is a headless, rack-mounted Linux box with a couple of SSDs attached. Each SSD is formatted with ext4. The users can connect to the system using Samba/CIFS to upload new audio files or access existing ones. There is also custom software for streaming out audio over the network. This is all fine. The only problem is that the users are audio people, not computer people, and see the system as a 'black box', not as a computer. Which means that at the end of the day, they aren't going to ssh in to the box and enter "/sbin/shutdown -h"; they are just going to cut power to the rack and leave, and expect things to still work properly the next day. Since ext4 has journalling, journal checksumming, etc, this mostly works. The only time it doesn't work is when someone uploads a new file via Samba and then cuts power to the system before the uploaded data has been fully flushed to the disk. In that case, they come in the next day and find that their new file has been truncated or is missing entirely, and are unhappy. My question is, what is the best way to avoid this problem? Is there a way to get smbd to call "sync" at the end of every upload? (Performance on uploads isn't so important, since they only happen occasionally). Or is there a way to tell ext4 to automatically flush within a few seconds of any change to a file? (Again, performance can be sacrificed for safety here) Should I set a particular write-ordering mode, activate barriers, etc?

  Read the article

• PostgreSQL 8.4 - Tablespace Optimization

  - by FloE

  I'm currently running a PostgreSQL Database with about 1.5 billion rows / 500 GB of data (including indices). There are several schemata: on for the (read only, irregular changes / updates) 'core-model' and one for every user (about 20 persons). The users can access the core and store data in their own schema, so everything is located in one database. The server runs with CentOS and PostgreSQL 8.4 and is used for scientific studies, exploration etc and is running quite well. These days an upgrade of the DB storage hard disks arrive - all with the same performance as the old ones. I'm looking for the best way to distribute the data on these disks. It would be possible to separate frequently used objects (the core-data) from the user schemata, but I'm not sure if this is really worth the effort. It seems to be a much better idea to move the WAL files (pg_xlog directory) to its own partition. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/wal-internals.html What are your opinions? Are there any tablespace- or partitioning-related performance documentations / benchmarks?

  Read the article

• Format & Fresh Install Mac OS X Snow Leopard on Mac mini.

  - by sagar

  Hello Every one. I have purchased a DVD of Snow Leopard (Mac OS X 10.6.2) I purchased a Mac mini with Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5.7) I tried to install Mac OS X 10.6.2 Everything went perfectly. System was installed successfully. But the problem that I faced is as follows. System was installed but my older data remained as it is. (means installation didn't format every thing - means installation was done on upgrade basis.) Now, my system works with very low speed. Previous performance of Mac mini was double as compare to current upgrade version. Now - my question are as follows. Does an upgrade installation causes the performance issues in Mac OS X? Or is Snow Leopard too demanding for the Mac mini? ( 2 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1GB RAM - is this configuration OK for Snow Leopard? ) Does a fresh install work better than an upgrade?

  Read the article

• Creating basic, redundant gigE or IB storage network for Xen?

  - by StaringSkyward

  With only a modest budget, I want to move my 4 xen servers over to network storage -either NFS or iSCSI which will be determined based on how well it performs when we test it (we need good throughput and it must continue to work through link and switch failure tests). We may add another couple of xen servers at some point when this is done. I don't know much about the design and operation of storage networks, so would really appreciate some hints from those with experience. The budget is around $3,800 excluding the storage appliance. I am currently thinking these are my options to remain on budget: 1) Go for used infiniband hardware and aim for 10gb performance. 2) Stick with gig ethernet and buy some new switches (cisco or procurve) to create a storage-only ethernet LAN. Upgrade to 10gigE later but try to use hardware capable of it where possible to reduce upgrade costs. I have seen used, warrantied infiniband switches at reasonable prices (presumably because big companies are converging on 10gbit ethernet?) and the promise of cheap 10gb is attractive. I know nothing about IB, so here come the questions: Can I buy 2 x switches and have multiple HBAs in my xen and storage nodes to get redundancy and increased performance without complexity or expensive management software costs? If so, can you point me to some examples? Do NFS and iSCSI work just the same regardless? Is IB a sensible choice or could/should I use ethernet or FC on the same budget - I'm keen not to get boxed into a corner for future upgrades, however. For the storage I am likely to build a storage server using nexentastor with the intention that I can later add more disks, SSDs and add another server to provide a failover option at the storage level. An HP LeftHand starter SAN is also under consideration, too. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Value of Itanium over x86_64 for Oracle Deployment

  - by Antitribu

  We are looking at a new environment to run our Oracle Database running on SUSE (potentially migrating to RedHat). Our database is approximately 100GB and performs adequately on our current hardware (x86_64) with approximately 6GB of ram allocated to it. We are growing quickly however and will require more performance shortly. Given the cost of Oracle licenses we would like to maximize the value from each license by choosing the most appropriate CPU to run the software on. The questions are: Are there substantial benefits to looking at Itanium hardware, are there any drawbacks? Is there a point where Itanium starts to scale out better? What are the long term support options for Itanium? Given the dominance of x86 would it be safer long term to stick with x86? On average what would be the performance benefit of implementing an Oracle database on Itanium over x86_64? Is this an issue at all or will other factors (IO/RAM) cap out first? If anyone can point me towards some solid documentation on comparisons between the two platforms that provides good case analysis of when to choose which I'm more than happy to accept that as an answer.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554  | Next Page >